Justices mull human price of child porn

‘Amy’ wants man to pay $3.4M for all who viewed rape scenes

WASHINGTON — The rapes captured on film happened 16 years ago, but the child in the photographs is being victimized each time someone downloads the graphic images of her uncle’s sexual assaults.

Lawyers representing the Pennsylvania woman known in court documents as “Amy Unknown” want her and others like her to be able to more easily collect monetary damages from people who have viewed the images.

They made their point Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that involves Doyle R. Paroline, a Texas man appealing a court order holding him responsible for the full amount of Amy’s damages — about $3.4 million — for viewing two graphic images of her.

The court is being asked how to apportion responsibility for compensation in child pornography cases when there are numerous defendants.

First, the justices must determine whether the act of simply viewing child pornography directly causes enough injury to trigger mandatory restitution called for in a 1994 federal law; the law requires restitution for pornographers whose crimes caused “proximate harm.”

Three attorneys offered widely varying approaches, but the justices didn’t seem to like any of them.

“One of the challenges is taking some very traditional legal principles and applying to a new crime [involving] the Internet. ... That is a real practical problem that the court has not really encountered before,” said James R. Marsh, a White Plains, N.Y., attorney who has represented “Amy” in several restitution filings, including one in Pittsburgh.

In that case, Kelly Hardy of New Castle, Pa., had been sentenced to 30 years in prison for possession of vast amounts of child pornography, including images of Amy. Hardy paid $1,000 in restitution to her.

That case is closed and will be unaffected by the Paroline decision.

According to Supreme Court filings, Hardy’s is the only “Amy” case heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Eastern District, however, has adjudicated six child pornography cases involving photos of Amy. In those cases, restitution ranged from $1,000 to $2,500.

In 175 other cases in other states, awards have ranged widely from $50 to $3.5 million.

With many defendants appealing and others unable to pay, Amy has collected about $1.75 million so far. She wants the full $3.4 million — the cost of ongoing therapy, lost wages, and attorney fees.

“We’re not asking for double recovery. Amy simply wants to be made whole,” one of her attorneys, Paul G. Cassell of Utah, told the justices Wednesday. That’s what Congress intended when it passed the 1994 law, he said.

The first defendant able to make restitution must do so, he said. Then it’s up to that defendant to use legal channels to recoup some of the money from subsequently convicted defendants, Mr. Cassell said.

“Congress wanted those burdens on criminal defendants rather than innocent victims,” he argued.

Texas attorney Stanley G. Schneider, who represents Paroline, argued the harm to Amy came at the hands of her uncle, not his client.

The link to Paroline is too remote and too tenuous to have caused enough harm to warrant any restitution order at all, he argued.

“There has to be some evidence that ties the losses to the conduct,” he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia said there is a connection.

“This woman has gone through psychological harm because of the knowledge people are viewing her rape. Why isn’t your client responsible for that? [Why] can’t she recover something from him?” he asked. How much he should pay is another matter, he said.

“To sock him for all of her psychological costs and everything else because he had two pictures of her? Congress couldn’t have intended that,” Justice Scalia said.

Mr. Cassell isn’t so sure. He argued Paroline should have to pay the full $3.4 million.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted the uncle who raped Amy, photographed the assaults, and distributed the pictures was ordered to pay $6,000 in restitution.

“It seems that the possessor of two images should not be responsible for more than the person who perpetrated this horrendous crime,” Justice Ginsberg said.

Michael R. Dreeben, deputy solicitor general for the United States, argued that restitution should be apportioned among the numerous defendants — including those who haven’t been arrested and even those who haven’t yet committed their crimes.

That’s not feasible, argued Mr. Cassell, a former federal judge. “We don’t know if there are going to be convictions next year or the year after,” he said.

The Block News Alliance consists of The Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Tracie Mauriello is a reporter for the Post-Gazette.

She can be reached at: tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 703-996-9292.

Copyright 2016 The Blade. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission.